Mobile Phone Contract - Price Rise Refunds

BonnieBonn

BEST TUESDAY EVER :]

Got my decision back from CISAS which has been successful. Took out a 24 month contract renewal in January - have been with Orange for nearly 10 years and this price increase was the final straw!! They have no customer loyalty whatsoever - sticking it out with them wasn't the best way to go about it.

So happy with the decision :] Thank you SO MUCH to RandomCurve - seriously would be stuck and much worse off financially if it wasn't for your help, you've literally saved me a ridiculous amount of money !

If you need a full copy of the response and decision please let me know and I can private message it over.

Good luck to everyone who is waiting to hear !

Just to add it has been successful in PART - they don't agree that I should be compensated but do agree I can have it cancelled fee free and backdated from 28th May - the compensation would have been nice but I am happy to not have to pay a ridiculous amount of money to cancel. Also they don't have to apologize! How rude...

Mikmonken

Can you post the initials of your adjudicator?

The anticipation of me getting a decision is killing me.

RandomCurve

BonnieBonn wrote: »

BEST TUESDAY EVER :]

Got my decision back from CISAS which has been successful.

3-0 to the consumer - so far!!


Would love a copy of the full decision, please email to:
[EMAIL="info@fightmobileincreases.com"]info@fightmobileincreases.com[/EMAIL]


Thanks for the feedback.

ulaggy

Hi fella, what do you think I should do re: my previous post? Respond with something brief or just say that my case against T-Mob is still the same and I feel no need to make a further comment and would rather get my decision?

RandomCurve

PeteM1967 wrote: »

This is the response I intend sending to CISAS regarding the defense I have quoted in post #768. This is based on RandomCurve's CISAS response and I have attempted to renumber the paragraphs to match my T-Mobile defense however as post #553 on which the original response is based appears to have been removed my the moderators there is a certain amount of guess work involved when figuring out what aligns with what!

You can find that original defence to align the paragraph number here:
http://fightmobileincreases.com/fight-ee/fight-the-march-2014-price-rise/


A few points:
Your response to para 23 - take out the last part:
Paragraph 23
This statement is factually incorrect. The monthly charge for the account in question has increased from £24 to £24.98 which is an increase of 2.88% and therefore is in excess of the quoted RPI value. The assertion that clause 7.2.3 cannot be invoked is incorrect, however my case is in regards to Ofcom GC 9.6.


RPI
In your claim did you use the paragraph that states EE have applied the increase in such a manner that the NET amount you pay each month has increased by more than 2.7%? If so refer back to that point and highlight (in the opening part regarding items EE have not addressed), that EE have not explained how a net increase of 2.88% is below 2.7%.


Para 15 - see post #757


Para 21
This is further evidence of how EE try to manipulate things. Through being selective with the dates they have chosen to quote it appears that there has been 14 months between price rises - this is not true. The full dates are:
Effective 9th May 2013 EE apply the MARCH 2013 RPI, in 2014 effective 26th May 2014 EE apply the FEBRUARY 2014 RPI. With the full dates it is clear that EE should have referenced the March 2014 RPI rate (which was 2.5% and not 2.7%). I note that EE have declined to comment why it is appropriate to apply a 12 month RPI to an 11 month period.

Paragraph 38
This s really interesting:
38. The Respondent avers that pursuant to Clause 7.1.4 it can increase any Price Plan charge so long as the requisite 30 days’ written notice is given. The Respondent denies that the Agreement implies a price change can only occur annually and submits that the Claimant is not a position to speculate as to the Respondent’s intention when drafting agreements.
EE appear to be saying that the contract does indeed allow them to increase the price EVERY month by an ANNUAL rate of inflation - clearly totally unacceptable!!!
I would respond:
Paragraph 38
As per my claim the contract clearly refers to an ANNUAL inflation rate being applied, and as it is obvious that an ANNUAL inflation rate has to relate to a 12 month period it follows that the contract implies that my contract can only be subject to a maximum of an annual increase. It also follows that a 12 month inflation rate cannot be applied to an 11 month period as that would simply render the use of an annual rate as meaningless. I note that EE have offered no explanation as to why they believe the use of an annual inflation does not imply that increases can only be applied annually, and demonstrates how EE simply make "statements" rather than providing evidence to support those statements.

RandomCurve

ulaggy wrote: »

Looks like my case is delayed again! Sigh.

As I pointed out that T-Mobile/EE (referred to just as EE from now on) had claimed I was on an old version of the contract, 58, rather than 59, which I had photographic proof of, the adjudicator asked EE to clarify this. EE have now done so (as I posted further up this page). But I've now been given the opportunity to make further comments. So that'll run till the 16th, meaning I'm looking at July for a decision. Bah!

RandomCurve, is it worth me making any further comments and if so, what would you suggest? About all I can think to put is "This is further evidence of the lack of duty of care that T-Mobile/EE have shown me"

Thanks mate

That is exactly what I would I do - maybe widen it out a little to say it shows the poor standard of EE systems which is probably the underlying cause of their poor customer service they have given you throughout this dispute.

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

RandomCureve, re: the second letter to OFCOM when should we chase a response? I had a thank you email from Beverley Harris on the 2nd June

That would be much appreciated.


Just something short along the lines of:


"Further to my email of X and your acknowledgement of receipt, can you please indicate when I will receive a full response."


Thanks

RandomCurve

Mikmonken wrote: »

Can you post the initials of your adjudicator?

The anticipation of me getting a decision is killing me.

Just want to say thanks for all of the "re-tweeting" you have been doing - much appreciated.


All if you could Facebook/Tweet the message regarding Vodafone price rise that would be really helpful.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fightmobileincreasescom/396612317147525


And Like/Follow FightMobileIncreases.com on Facebook/Twitter - cheers

ulaggy

RandomCurve wrote: »

That is exactly what I would I do - maybe widen it out a little to say it shows the poor standard of EE systems which is probably the underlying cause of their poor customer service they have given you throughout this dispute.

Thanks fella, will do that. Nothing is ever straight forward with me!


"The mix-up by T-Mobile/EE (referred to as EE from this point on) with regards to which version of the contract I am on is further evidence of the lack of duty of care that I have received as a loyal customer of several years. It shows that whatever systems have been put in place to handle my complaint have not only been unsatisfactory, but have not been personal to me. EE have used generic copy and paste letters to respond to my complaint, and not only has this been impersonal but also it has led to factual errors in their own defence, and as such is a cause of stress throughout my case. I would ask that the adjudicator considers this with regards to my claim for compensation." is what I'm going for I think

factor29

Has anyone had a response from Vodafone so far with the letter? Ofcom replied saying that my concerns have been formally noted, giving me a reference number.

Is that the normal procedure?

Thanks